Talk:Principality of Antioch

Military history: Balkan / European / Middle East / Medieval / Crusades Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Crusades task force

Middle Ages: Crusades Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Normandy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Normandy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Normandy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NormandyWikipedia:WikiProject NormandyTemplate:WikiProject NormandyNormandy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece: Byzantine Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

[Untitled]

Hmm... wasn't Bohemund already Prince of Taranto? john 00:01 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he was a count in Taranto, and then he declared himself a prince in Antioch just for prestige. Adam Bishop 00:10 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Runciman calls him Prince. "The princes at first held back, but Guiscard's son Bohemond, now prince of Taranto" (History of the Crusades, Vol. 1, p.112) john 00:19 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't have any sources that refer to him as anything other than "Bohemund of Taranto," they never give a title (I unfortunately don't own Runciman or any of the big histories). Googling for him turns up results with Prince, Duke, and Count as a title (not that that really means much). I could swear there was some minor controversy because he called himself a Prince when he actually wasn't... Adam Bishop 00:29 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah, I never followed up on this - Runciman has the habit of calling all the major crusade leaders "princes", including Godfrey and Raymond, who were certainly a duke and a count respectively. This comes from the convention of calling their crusade the "princes' crusade," when what is meant is that they were wealthy nobles as opposed to a crowd of poorer knights and soldiers. They weren't literally princes, and neither was Bohemund, as Taranto wasn't a principality. Adam Bishop 01:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, upon further reading, it seems that Taranto really was a principality under the king of Sicily. I guess I don't know very much about southern Italy at this period. In any case, calling all the crusaders "princes" is still hyperbole, and the problem is not whether or not Bohemund was already a prince, but that he claimed Antioch at all. Hopefully this is the last I will have to say about this :) Adam Bishop 02:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please discuss his titles (and status) under Talk:Bohemund I of Antioch. I think he was not COUNT of T, but allodial prince there. 62.78.106.188 14:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Map

Please see the Map showng "Antioch under Byzantine Protection". Please edit it and remove Edessa as a county, its under Syrian control by 1158, when Antioch was made a Byzantine vassal.Tourskin 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, KOJ was bigger as Adam pointed out. I can edit the map if you want, just leave a message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabr-el (talk • contribs) 00:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coinage

"Helmet" denier of Antioch, 1163-1216. PHG ^{Per Honor et Gloria} 05:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography/Further Reading

I am wanting to add two sections. The first would be on the historiography on the principality. This would include the main primary sources: Walter the Chancellor; Ralph of Caen; Albert of Aechen; and Fulcher of Chartres. I would like to write quite generally about the nature of their sources as they majorly effect the current information we have on Antioch. I think there should also be a small section on secondary sources which mention the new works published by scholars in recent years on Antioch, including Thomas S. Asbridge, E. S. Bouchier (published in 1921 but no mention on the page) and Joshua Birk. In the second section I think a further reading list should also be added so anyone interested in this topic who wants to read beyond Wikipedia has clear access to different types of sources. Thanks Preciousfacts (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preciousfacts Thank you for improving the article. Further reading sections are always a good idea so good move adding one! The new section on relationship with other Latin settlements is a significant improvement. The text is well referenced and provides context for the events recounted in the article. I wondered if you might be able to check over one sentence in particular? Secondly, alliances between Latin rulers was secured through their shared situation in the East. This alliance was strengthened by feudal ties and marriage alliances between eastern Latin rulers There's a mixture of singular and plural here so the wording needs tweaking. I was going to do it myself but wasn't sure if you wanted to focus on one alliance (in which case it would be worth specifying which) or several. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]